Push for cameras in more Minnesota day cares pitched by families, lawmaker
Go Deeper.
Create an account or log in to save stories.
Like this?
Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.
It's possible Minnesota could become the first state in the country to require security cameras in child care centers.
There was an informational hearing in a House committee Tuesday on a bill sponsored by Republican state Rep. Nolan West. The bill, dubbed Harvey's Law, memorializes 11-month-old Harvey Muklebust, who died at a Savage day care at the hands of an 18-year-old employee who confessed to choking the child.
It’s not the first time cameras in child care centers have come before the Legislature. West’s previous attempt last year was whittled down to only requiring cameras in centers the subject of maltreatment investigations, with 28 days of footage retention. West joined Cathy Wurzer on Morning Edition to explain his need for more surveillance.
The following has been lightly edited for clarity. Listen to the conversation by clicking the player button above.
Turn Up Your Support
MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all.
Your bill requires cameras in infant and toddler areas and in day cares receiving state money. How much of this is about safety?And based on those viral videos done by conservative content creator Nick Shirley, how much of this is about potential fraud?
This is literally all about safety. The state money aspect is because I didn't want to make it apply to every single center, because some people don't — I don't understand them, but — some people don't want their kids monitored using video cameras, so I wanted to leave some centers that were untouched by this. But when there's taxpayer dollars involved, we have a greater standard of accountability, so it made a lot of sense to have it apply in that manner.
Tuesday’s testimony by the parents and family of Harvey was heart-wrenching. Could this cause some providers to opt out of various programs that could affect families by curtailing services, if compliance is tied to public funding.
So it's narrow to only affect two rooms: infant and toddler rooms. Many cameras are in centers already, so I do not think it's such a burden that centers would turn down hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars of state money. So maybe there will be a few, but I think that is a very that will be a very, very small number.
What do you make of the testimony around the privacy and security concerns?
We addressed those concerns last year when the bill passed. We have a CCTV mandate. Instead of essentially any security camera, the footage is relegated only to designated personnel at the child care center and the department. Law enforcement only sees it in an investigation, and parents essentially have no access, which was an enormous compromise on my part. I don't think some of the concerns are as important as protecting children and holding the few bad actors accountable, because there are so many other opportunities. The idea that some perv is going to hack into these cameras, I think, is just not a real concern compared to what we heard from the families. That is something gross that we should address, but I don't think it's relevant to this issue.
Is there a better way to prevent mistakes in maltreatment, like better supervision, better training, better procedures?
There is always more we can do. And then we have to weigh what we can do based on the cost because daycare is quite expensive. This is both preventative and, as you heard from the police detective that testified, without video footage, when bad things happen, they don't have a lot they can do unless they literally get a confession, which is what happened in Harvey's case here. But if that individual lawyered up instead of confessed, I bet you they might not even get a maltreatment violation, and might have been chalked up to something else entirely. So it's incredibly important both for prevention of abuse, because people act differently when they're monitored, and directors can respond quicker if there is something going on. It also exonerates people who get accused of something they didn't do, but it also provides accountability when bad things do happen. Only two rooms and 28-day data retention can be done for a very reasonable cost.
